If we understand nil as the empty set (like some other languages do), then Set with: nil is not any different than Set with: Set new.
Its not invalid. Stef reminds me about it from time to time.On 20 May 2011 04:13, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Since a year ago, we have this issue:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1907
>
> There were 2 solutions proposed, and the 2 were developed by different
> people.�� But for some reason it was not integrated and continuously
> postponed.
>
> So, my question is: Do we want Sets accepting nil?�� If we don't, the issue
> is invalid.�� If we do, can someone review the code proposed?
>
And actually we wanted to sit and review and integrate it but it
always something else needs our attention.
> Thanks!
> Guille
>
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.